Labour Conference Passes motion in Support of Bus workers

by Stike Mon Nov 19, 2007 17:37

"Conference Supports

The grievances of Dublin Bus workers." and the strike action? That resolution leaves that a bit open ended, to say the least.

Support the strike! Extend the action! For militant trade unionism!

by socilaist Mon Nov 19, 2007 18:02

A reference to the strike has obiously been ommitted. What would you expect from a bosses party.?Labour in the north are scabbing on classroom assistants

by ? Mon Nov 19, 2007 18:12

The workers have voted to return to work. So your comments arent exactly helpful. Unless you think the workers didnt know what they were doing but you know better than them.

by DM - Labour Mon Nov 19, 2007 18:38

Socialist: Labour arn't in the north! and if you mean the SDLP (who support the classroom assistants) it 's actually a Sinn Fein Minister that has education on the executive. Or if you mean British Labour in governent (who we have no say in ) they don't have control of the issue as it's up to the assembly.

Strike: As for the end of the bus strike, that happened after the motion was passed and fair play to Chris for drafting it,

Maura: As for the S2S motion the leadersip opposed it and had it a refered (a way of killing it by voting it be referred to the NEC of the party) though with Paul Dillon (a staunch supporter of the people of rossport) getting elected to the NEC there's hope yet.

by DM - Labour Mon Nov 19, 2007 18:38

Socialist: Labour arn't in the north! and if you mean the SDLP (who support the classroom assistants) it 's actually a Sinn Fein Minister that has education on the executive. Or if you mean British Labour in governent (who we have no say in ) they don't have control of the issue as it's up to the assembly.

Strike: As for the end of the bus strike, that happened after the motion was passed and fair play to Chris for drafting it,

Maura: As for the S2S motion the leadersip opposed it and had it a refered (a way of killing it by voting it be referred to the NEC of the party) though with Paul Dillon (a staunch supporter of the people of rossport) getting elected to the NEC there's hope yet.

by Chris Bond - Labour Youth & ATGWU(Personal Capacity). Mon Nov 19, 2007 19:34

''What would you expect from a bosses party''

Thats complete and utter nonsense, my Father is a Bus driver and has the potential to be affected by the changing of shifts. I wouldnt be in Labour if i thought it was a boses party. you can bash this motion all you like, but what have you done for the busworkers?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Nov 19, 2007 20:26

Mark Langhammer (Chair of the Labour Forum, the party's Branch in Northern Ireland) who was co-opted onto the LP's National Executive Committee is also the Northern Ireland Director of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and has played the role of chief scab during the classroom assistants strike in the North.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Mon Nov 19, 2007 20:27

You really should get to know how your own party operates.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Mon Nov 19, 2007 20:30

wasn't it Joan Burton who, when asked to comment on the bus drivers strike, said that commuters must be having a 'bad hair day'

really insightful stuff.

by Chris Bond Mon Nov 19, 2007 20:48

That is a disgracful and patronising comment directed at DM, of course he knows how his party works.

Commuters are workers aswell, so theres no point in pretending that the bus strike doesnt affect them aswell, in saying that i do not believe that there is a conflict between the workers of Dublin Bus and the interests of the commuters. Its the company who are to blame for the strike and the thousands of workers affected by it. I showed the text of the motion to my Father who is a bus driver before i submitted it, and he agreed that it was phrased in the best way possible, so stop pretending you know whats best for workers.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP?CWI Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:37

...it was patronising Chris. DM attempted to deflect criticism of a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party who has played a disgraceful role in the classroom assistants strike by suggesting that the LP is not organised in Northern Ireland. This is from the LP website 'Mark Langhammer (Chair of the Labour Forum, the party's Branch in Northern Ireland)'. Now if you set yourself up to try and gain a moral high ground in politics then you have to expect to get shot down when it is demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.

As regards Joan Burton - yes, I agree the company is to blame for the strike, but also the government who are attempting to privatise Bus routes. Yet the best Joan Burton could come up with was that commuters were having a 'bad hair day'. The only one having a bad hair day was Joan Burton.

by James Bond Tue Nov 20, 2007 17:29

Tommy Broughan wasn't exactly supportive of the bus workers when he was asked was he?

by DM - Labour Tue Nov 20, 2007 19:00

I regards to Mark Langhammer he is one member of the NEC not elected by the general membership but by the small membership in NI, his personnal involvement in the ATL is not under the parties control so to condem the entire party for his actions is completly out of order.

I disagree with Mark on the classroom assistant strike (as I disagree with David Beggs on social partenership) however I am part of a broad leftist movement and part of that is working with people you don't agreee with all the time, not splitting at the first oppertunity or forcing a set stance on everyone in an organisation.

People critise the Labour Party for not always being involved in certain campaigns and strikes, from this thread it's easy to see why, how can our activists get involved when the first reaction by certain parts of the micro-left is to attack us no matter what, This thread was origanally about the fact that our confrence passed a motion (with a massive majority) in favour of the Bus workers. I would have thought these so-called SP friends of the Bus workers would have welcomed it rather then use it as an oppertunity to attack us!

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Tue Nov 20, 2007 22:21

To start with I will quote directly from what you said -

"Labour arn't in the north!"

This was a direct attempt to deflect criticism of the leading representative of the Irish LP in the North in his activities in attempting to break the strike of classroom assistants in the North,

Labour are in the North and Mark Langhammer is the rrepresentative of the Northern branch of the LP on the LP's NEC. In my response I pointed out the behaviour of this individual. As regards the response of the LP - will the LP move to expel Mark Langhammer for his strike-breaking activities? (I won't hold my breath)

The next quote -

"I disagree with Mark on the classroom assistant strike (as I disagree with David Beggs on social partenership) however I am part of a broad leftist movement and part of that is working with people you don't agreee with all the time, not splitting at the first oppertunity or forcing a set stance on everyone in an organisation."

You disagree with what these individuals are doing but will do absolutely nothing about it - in the same way that you would be doing absolutely nothing if the LP were actually in government and implementing exactly the same neo-liberal policies as the current government. Did we see a motion at the LP Conference supporting the classroom assistants and condemning the behaviour of a member of the party's own NEC?

"This thread was origanally about the fact that our confrence passed a motion (with a massive majority) in favour of the Bus workers. I would have thought these so-called SP friends of the Bus workers would have welcomed it rather then use it as an oppertunity to attack us!"

The motion may have been in favour of the bus workers - but specifically DID NOT state that it supported the strike action by the bus workers. Why? (was it that Begg and his buddies might be upset - or was it the Parliamentary Party who would have difficulty defending such a pronouncement) How many LP TD's walked on the picket line with Dublin Bus workers over the past few days? Actions speak louder than words - motions are all well and good - but the LP will have to do a little more than talk (particularly about having a bad hair day) if you want to impress the workers in Dublin Bus.

by Chris Bond Wed Nov 21, 2007 00:53

Jolly red giant, clearly doesnt have any family member or relative who has ever worked on a bus, He claims that this motion doesnt go far enough, even though the current wording was influenced by someone who was actually involved in the strike. could it be the case that he knows whats in the interests of workers better than they do themselves.?

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:50

you are jumping to conclusions - do you have relatives wokring in Dublin Bus? (as you seem to be ware of what the view of the workers is - not) - and clearly the wording of the motion was designed to avoid the LP and ICTU avoiding having to commit either to supporting the strike action of the bus workers...something that hasn't gone unnoticed by the bus workers by the way (and I have direct confirmation of this).

by P. Bowman Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:59

Jolly Red, your ways are sectarian and ahistorical, and you can’t differentiate between members and leaders. Some years ago you decided that the Labour Party had become a bourgeois party (with no turning back), and since then you are forced to fit any fact into that theory.

For you, the labour party is either 100 per cent revolutionary or 100 per cent bourgeois. For you, social really is static rather than in constant flow.

You cannot accept that labour party members passed a motion in support of the bus drivers, who were on strike at the time the motion was passed.

If any, you could have suggested including in the motion a warning about the privatisation agenda of the government. It would have been also much better if labour party members (the more conscientious) had been at the picket line and in the march of bus drivers last Wednesday.

It is true that labour party leaders, more often than not, play into the hands of the bosses, and it is true that they didn’t come out in solidarity with the bus drivers on strike. Some actually did the opposite. Labour party leaders are currently as good (or as bad) as trade union leaders, mainly because of the links between unions and the labour party.

Yet, labour party members passed a motion in support of the bus drivers on strike in the same way that workers can go on strike without the authorisation of their union leaders. And labour party leaders didn’t dare to oppose the will of the majority of the members. That is what you refuse to see.

By the way, the labour party conference also adopted the red flag as the party anthem. The end of history hasn’t arrived to the Irish labour party. Actually, the theory of the end of history is a bourgeois theory.

by Luke - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Nov 21, 2007 20:19

P. Bowman is, as I understand it a supporter of the British Socialist Appeal grouping. If he/she is in Ireland then he/she is their sole supporter here. It is entertaining to see him/her accuse others of being "ahistorical" when his/her own political analysis of the Labour Party goes something along the following lines: Lenin said that the British Labour Party was a "capitalist workers party" in 1920. Therefore the Irish Labour Party in 2007 is a capitalist workers party. As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end. World without end. Amen.

Socialist Appeal is notable only for the timelessness of its politics, ahistorical in the truest sense. But I wish P Bowman the best of luck in trying to build a revolutionary socialist tendency within Gilmore's Labour Party. Hopefully he/she will get back to us with an update on how that ludicrous task is proceeding.

While he/she is here, he might enlighten me on a certain point however. The last significant publication his organisation produced on Ireland was a laughably dishonest book by their group guru Alan Woods. This book amongst other things made the argument that the IRSP/INLA was the repository of genuinely Marxist politics in Ireland. Yet here is P. Bowman arguing in favour of joining the Labour Party, something the IRSP has never had any truck with at all. Can P. Bowman clear up this confusion for me?

Which organisation does Socialist Appeal think that socialists in Ireland should join? The IRSP or the Labour Party? If the latter, have you told your new Labour friends about your infatuation with the IRSP? If the former, have you told your IRSP friends that they should dissolve into Labour?

by P. Bowman Wed Nov 21, 2007 21:22

Luke,

Ad hominem: you refuse to deal with the argument in discussion and rather attack the person who put it forward.

Pre dialectical logic (that is, Aristotelian) proved the fallacy of such a way to argue long, long time ago. But you still haven't reached even the level of scholastic philosophy.

I will leave you in the dark ages. Your manners are not better than your level of arguing either. There is no point in arguing with you. You can screen louder if you wish.

Sincerely,

P. Bowman

by Mark P Wed Nov 21, 2007 22:31

That's an amusingly pompous way of saying you won't or can't answer the relatively straightforward questions Luke asked. Surely you aren't so ashamed of your organisational affiliations that you feel the need to slink away like this?

Oh well, I'm sure a second Socialist Appeal supporter will reach these shores in the next fifteen years or so. Perhaps they will be a little less shy.

by P. Bowman Thu Nov 22, 2007 09:01

Mark and Luke,

I know personally some of the senior members of the Socialist Party in Ireland. I can have disagreements over different questions. But I believe them to be honest and dedicated socialists.

There is a long and wide gap between you and them. Your method (ie. ad hominem) is too crude, too sectarian. It reminds me of the agents provocateurs of the Stalinist school.

Your territorial argument, over the shores of this Island, and the way you address me as a foreigner, on the other hand, is not proper for someone who considers himself to be a socialist.

But this is an old issue. Actually, many have believed socialism to be a foreign ideology. James Connolly argued in several articles and pamphlets against those positions. For real socialists there are no countries, no borders, and no foreigners.

I am not sure whether you are members of the Socialist Party, or just pretend to be in order to discredit that organisation. In the case you were members, you still must learnt the traditions, the methods and the manners proper of a socialist.

Sincerely,

P. Bowman

by Mark P Thu Nov 22, 2007 13:43

Entertaining though it is to be condescended to by someone who apparently thinks that that Gilmore's Labour Party is a party of the working class, your latest comment is as empty of substance as your previous one. You were asked some fairly straightforward questions about your politics and the politics of your organisation as they apply to Ireland. Regardless of how rude you think Luke or I have been, this gives you a perfect opportunity to explain to us and to a wider audience.

Your comments about socialism as a foreign ideology, sectarianism and "agent provocateurs of the Stalin school" are red herrings. They are empty smears. But I have a thicker skin than you apparently do. So instead of sulking and storming off I will repeat, in politer form, Luke's questions to you.

Do you stand by the arguments made in Alan Woods book that the IRSP/INLA represents Marxist politics in Ireland? Do you think that socialists in Ireland should join the Labour Party or the IRSP? Have you openly argued in the Labour Party that its members should join the IRSP or in the IRSP that its members should join the Labour Party? If not, why not?

by P. Bowman Thu Nov 22, 2007 18:00

Normally, I wouldn’t enter into a discussion with anyone who has acted with such a lack of respect and honesty. But I will do it in the hope that you might get something positive out of this. It is up to you.

I still think that you are doing a disservice to your organisation with the way in which you behave. If you represent the new generation of members of the SP (I hope not), the future of that organisation will be very uncertain. I would like to believe that the SP is not going to be driven to a dead end.

The whole way in which you put the questions says a lot about your approach to social and political issues. It tells about your ideas, because ideas are related to methods.

Look, how can you even think of asking members of the IRSP to join the LP or to member of the LP join the IRSP at present? Only dogmatic thinking can lead to ask anything like that. Further, you are framing your questions in a very abstract and ahistorical way.

I would remind you of the Communist Manifesto in relation to this question:

“The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution… Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”. Etc. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communi...4.htm)

It was written in a different context and addressed organisations that no longer exist. And where Marx says democratic parties you could replace it with workers, socialist parties, for instance.

But it is still valid. In Ireland, the working class is politically very fragmented, and there are a number of organisations that represent the working class. The Labour Party with its shortcomings (but it is not the only party on the left with shortcomings) is one of them, actually the largest one. I see no contradiction in Marxists being members of the Irish labour party.

There can be genuine socialists working in all of them (and I am including the socialist republican parties too, the IRSP among them). I wouldn’t ask them to split their organisations, or to move around as you suggest. In my opinion, all genuine socialists should establish links among each other. The goal would be that the working class was able to present a united front, with a socialist programme and without sectarianism. I see no contradiction either between republicanism and socialism, as James Connolly didn’t see it.

I am talking about what could be done at the present moment, in the present circumstances. What is a mistake is that a small party presents itself as the sole representative of the working class and chastises everyone else.

That is what you have done in relation to the emergency motion that Labour Youth presented at the Labour Party National Conference. They did something right and you cannot take it away from them because it doesn’t fit your fixed schemes.

I remember that the spartacists used to behave like that, and they were literally a handful. I would suggest you to not go that way too.

That is my position in relation to the questions you are asking. But if you need to know the position of the magazine Socialist Appeal in relation to all this, if that is what you honestly want, you should go and talk to the editors. I am sure they will be open to honest debate with anyone who genuinely wants to learn about their positions.

If you agree with these very basic principles, I will tend you my hand in solidarity and comradeship. It is up to you.

by Mark P - Socialist Party Thu Nov 22, 2007 19:22

Well, P. Bowman, some of what you say, I agree with.

There are indeed genuine socialists in a range of political organisations and in none. Apart from the Socialist Party you can find sincere and honest socialists in the smaller left groupings and even a scattering of them in Sinn Fein and Labour. I have no problem with working with such people where there is agreement on a particular issue. The Socialist Party does this on a regular basis, when issues of common concern arise.

However, Sinn Fein and Labour are not socialist organisations (obviously) and neither are they parties of the workers movement. The United Front involves working class organisations working together for particular goals, while criticising each other where they disagree. There is no question of entering such an arrangement with the Labour Party, even leaving aside its class nature for a moment, because there are no issues of common concern for us to unite around. Whenever a major struggle arises in Irish society, like the bin tax issue or the European Constitution or whatever, the Labour Party is for the most part squarely in the capitalist camp. We can and do work with individual Labour Party members, but the idea of working with the Labour Party itself simply does not arise.

What's more, there is no mass of radicalised workers looking towards the Labour Party. It has a paper membership of a few thousand, an activist base in the high hundreds and a vote base which has more in common with slightly socially concerned liberalism than with workinging class radicalism.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s even the right of the Labour Party stood well to the left of the party today. More to the point there was a considerable left wing within the party, organising thousands of activists. Now the organisations of the Labour left are gone. The people who once led the Labour left have also left or been reconciled to business as usual. There is nor one figure in the parliamentary party or on the NEC who opposes coalition with the main right wing parties on principle. Not one. There is no organised grouping of leftists of any kind remaining. So how should we react if we find, as we occasionally do, a bewildered but sincere socialist or leftist within the party? Should we pat them on the head and tell them to get on with it? Or should we try to convince them to leave the Labour Party and to direct their energies towards something which might actually be of use to the working class?

As far as I am concerned the best position to take here is an honest one. To the very limited extent that there are leftists in the Labour Party they are wasting their time and we should tell them so, while trying to convince them of socialist ideas. We should not encourage them to go down a dead end - an approach which in reality is far more patronising to them.

Returning the issue of the IRSP for a moment. I do not accept that this small blood soaked organisation has anything to offer the working class in Ireland. That's why I was taken aback when I read Alan Woods book on republicanism. I have some respect for Woods as a writer, although his arrogance (in for example Reason and Revolt, where he ludicrously seeks to refute modern scientific theories by recourse to arguments based in Marxist philosophy) can lead him into some unfortunate mistakes. The problem with this book is rather different. It is not so much arrogance as complete and total political dishonesty.

Woods argues in the book that the IRSP represents Marxism in Ireland. He presents its foundation and its activities in an overwhelmingly positive light. Although he makes some general arguments against individual terrorism he never specifically applies these arguments to the activities of the INLA. Now Woods is entitled to argue all of this, even if more sensible observers might find such a characterisation of the IRSP bizarre and might in particular raise their eyebrows at his refusal to make the obvious point that his criticisms of individual terrorism apply to the INLA. The problem is not that he makes these odd political claims. The problem is that he never admits that the whole way through the period of the IRSP and INLA's existence he was a leader of a political organisation which vigorously opposed the politics and actions of those groups. He doesn't give a political explanation for changing his mind. In fact he doesn't mention that he has changed his mind at all. He doesn't explain why he no longer thinks that the MIlitant represented Marxist though in Ireland, instead he simply doesn't mention Militant's existence in this country.

As I said above, this is an entirely dishonest way to conduct a political argument. Not only are those who might have agreed with him previously entitled to a political accounting, his new would-be allies in the IRSP are entitled to an explanation of why he previously opposed them. More to the point how can workers trust an organisation which changes its politics so drastically, seemingly on a whim and without any explanation or even acknowledgement that a change has occurred?

The book annoints the IRSP, an organisation which has never been involved with the Labour Party and which would on principle refuse to be involved with the LP, as the representatives of Marxism-Leninism-Alan Woods Thought in Ireland. It doesn't mention that Woods and his group used to argue that socialists should work inside the Labour Party. In fact it doesn't really mention the Labour Party at all. Yet now that someone in Ireland supports the Woods group it appears that they are involved not with the IRSP but with the Labour Party! You can hardly be surprised that this causes a few raised eyebrows.

Were you not serious when you were telling us that the IRSP represented Marxism in Ireland? If the IRSP genuinely is a Marxist party, what excuse can you have for not joining it and building it? If on the other hand the IRSP is mistaken to try to build itself as an independent party and instead the way to a mass revolutionary party is through work in the Labour Party, what excuse can you have for failing to argue for this with the IRSP? There is a major contradiction here and if you are politically serious it is up to you to explain it. It is not good enough to say that people should stay where they are and work together, if you are serious about building a Marxist tendency. Marxists have a duty to give a lead. Say if you encounter some young radical who is just coming into political activity. Do you advise her to join the Labour Party or to join the IRSP?

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Thu Nov 22, 2007 20:56

Members and leaders!!!!

I attended the LP conference in Waterford in 1992 shortly after the LP went into coalition with FF. I remember one particular speech from Ann Gallagher from Cavan/Monaghan. She outlined that when she joined the LP it was full of socialists and trade unionists but 'we have changed all that now and got rid of them and got in real people like doctors and solicitors and accountants and business people' (direct quote) - and she got a standing ovation from the assembled throngs - I was even standing - well actually walking - out the back door.

You are spouting a lot of hot-air about how you believe members of the SP are genuine socialists. Woods, Sewell and the rest of the IMT have more hatred for the CWI than any other organisation on the left. As far as the IMT is concerned the CWI threw away forty years of hard work.

Woods' conversion to left republicanism does not surprise me. During the initial stages of the building of the Militant in Ireland, Woods was involved in writing a pamphlet on the national question in Ireland. The Irish members of the Militant were sent a draft and immediately returned it outlining that it was nothing more than a left republican rant rather than a Marxist analysis of the national question. Woods' response was that they couldn't sell it in the Irish pubs in England if they didn't outline support for left republicanism. Peter Taaffe, on the advice of the members in Ireland eventually went off and re-read the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and subsequently re-wrote the pamphlet. It now looks like Woods has gone back to his roots - and his desire to improve sales in London's Irish pubs.

As for the IRSP - genuine socialists!!! - there are probably the most vicious bunch of sectarians on the planet - whose only ability appears to be having a good aim when it comes to shooting one another during a feud. The interesting question will be - which side will Woods support when the next round of shooting starts among the 'comrades'.

by P. Bowman Fri Nov 23, 2007 00:00

Look, Mark, you keep attributing me things that I haven’t said. I think that you are talking to someone else and don’t even read what I write. You are not having this discussion with me. How on earth can we have a dialogue?

Your argument, in relation to what I have said comes down to this:

1. The labour party is not a party of the working class from any angle you can look at it. It was until the 1980s, but it is not now and never will be. Maybe you could go even further back. This would be your argument: It was a working class party in 1912; it wasn’t in the 1940s; it was in the 1970s; it wasn’t in the 1990s; etc. Or maybe, if you want to be coherent in your internal logic (in your mental representation), you might say: It never, ever was!!

Well, good luck with your ideas

2. You keep focussing obsessively on the IRSP. I find that very unhealthy. I have told you already that I think there are good socialists among the different republican organisations, including the IRSP. There is nothing wrong with being friendly with them, particularly if they want to establish a dialogue. It doesn’t mean you can’t have disagreements. But I certainly won’t exclude them.

The problem with your attitude towards the republican movement is that you will put off all those republicans with interests in the ideas of socialism. No wonder why so many republicans don’t want to hear anything about some of the Irish socialist parties.

I have no problem in talking to any sincere and honest socialist within the republican movement. Actually, I work regularly with some of them in particular campaigns, and I cannot but admire their hard work and genuine dedication to the cause of labour and republicanism.

I have also said above that I see no contradiction between republicanism and socialism. I have read James Connolly and I agree fully with his ideas.

But you keep going on:

You ask: “Were you not serious when you were telling us that the IRSP represented Marxism in Ireland? If the IRSP genuinely is a Marxist party, what excuse can you have for not joining it and building it?”

Where, when have I said it? Tell me!

I said that within the republican movement, including the IRSP, there are good socialists and Marxists. So, taking that premise out of your equation, the rest of your argument falls by itself. All the contradictions are in your mental representation!

As I have said a couple of times. For you there can be only 100 percent revolutionary organisation. And you believe that the only one is the SP. So all genuine socialist should join it. But the truth is that it is not happening.

Nevertheless, I hope that we will find common causes and can work together in the interest of the working class. And now, if you excuse me, I must move on.

In solidarity,

P. Bowman

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Nov 23, 2007 01:44

P. Bowman:

You say that I keep attributing things you haven't said to you. In fact I am attributing these things to the International Marxist Tendency, the political current which you, as I understand it, support. If you don't in fact agree with the IMT's views on Ireland, then please be explicit and tell me where you differ from them. If you have a different assessment to Alan Woods, by all means tell us so and I won't attribute his views to you again. But I notice that you don't actually say that these are not your views. So which is it?

You ask me about my view of the Irish Labour Party. Historically speaking, I think that it once was a "capitalist workers party", although a rather weak and peculiar one. I think that it shifted towards a complete embrace of capitalism over an extended period, starting in the 1980s and reaching a culmination in the mid-1990s. I do not argue that the Labour Party became and then stopped being a party of the working class on multiple occasions. It was one, in a distorted way, then it finally ceased being one, even in a distorted way. Neither, by the way, do I absolutely rule out anything progressive coming from the Labour Party. Odd things can happen in politics, for instance PASOK in Greece came out of an openly liberal party. Such things are very unusual though and in an Irish context I regard the chances of that happening as vanishingly small. Today Gilmore's Labour Party is an organisation of a few thousand members on paper and a fraction of that number of activists. It has no left wing current within it at a rank and file level and not one left wing individual in its parliamentary grouping.

You also ask about what you seem to think is my fixation with the IRSP. I can assure you that the IRSP plays no significant role in my political thinking. I raise the issue here because, bizarrely in my view, the international tendency you support has been courting the IRSP vigorously in recent years. Its website reproduces IRSP articles without comment or critical evaluation. Its chief leader has recently produced a book describing the IRSP's tradition as the authentic incarnation of Marxism in Ireland and which discusses the group at length in an entirely positive way without making any criticisms of it , its politics or its record. Yet now that your tendency has a supporter in Ireland, it appears that you participate in the Labour Party rather than in the party your tendency regards as the real Marxist organisation in Ireland. Are you really surprised that this raises eyebrows?

Finally, as with other individual leftists in parties like Labour or Sinn Fein, we have no problem working with you on issues of common concern. Working together does not mean papering over political disagreements however. Debate can help all of us clarify our ideas.

by P. Bowman Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:25

Mark, you are getting the wrong end of the stick again.

I said before that the problem lies in your method; in the way you approach the questions. That also has consequences at the level of ideas, your ideas. Social, economic and political reality is not static and you cannot look at it as in a picture frozen in time. The matter is not whether you are 90per cent Marxist, or 60percent, or 40percent, but towards where you are moving.

From that point of view, you can be heading to extinction while others can be moving in the right direction. Is that clear enough?

I’ve read Woods’s book on republicanism and revolution, and my reading is different than yours. I see no fundamental contradiction between my views and the views expressed in the book.

The scope of the book is limited; it analyses the republican movement through its historical development and the possibilities inherent in it. It also explains how republicanism can move in the right direction. But fundamentally, it is based in Connolly’s ideas (ie. relationship between republicanism and socialism). Connolly’s method was also historical and his texts are out there, if want to check and compare. Since its scope is limited (the book is actually brief), it doesn’t deal with other questions you mention.

That is what I got when I read it. It is a book, actually, I recommend to all those interested in issues related to republicanism and socialism. I encourage people to read it and see by themselves. You are offering a distorted view because of the way in which you approach the whole question, and, ultimately, because of how you view republicanism. You refuse to see that. Fine. You are free to draw your own conclusions. I don’t like, though, your crude comments. It is not a good method either. Socialists must behave in an exemplary way.

Finally, you also speak of organisations as if they were monoliths. That’s wrong. In political organisations there can be and there must be debate and different views, and no fear to express them or threats of expulsions. Method in that regards is also important. From the beginning, you must try and reason. You shouldn’t accuse as in an interrogatory, and you shouldn’t use ‘ad hominem’ arguments. I don’t like those methods. They are destructive and sectarian, and lead to dead ends.

In solidarity,

P. Bowman

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Fri Nov 23, 2007 19:45

are you actually aware of how much guff you are ejecting?

by Chris Bond Sun Nov 25, 2007 04:29

Firstly ''Jolly Red Giant'' you asked me do i have a relative working in Dublin bus, if you had taken the time to read my post, i stated that my father who was influential on this motion is a Bus driver whos working condtions may be affected if Dublin Bus are allowed to go ahead with these proposals.

The attacks on me and my comrade P Bowman by other posters are of a personalised nature.

Secondly there is a Tendancy amongst those on the left to try and afflict an amnesia upon history. They seem to have the attitiude that only Militant tendancy constituted an oppositon to Spring during the 1980s, that is a lie, there was another tendancy Labour Left which was non factionalist, which had a greater impact and succeeded in Uniting more Labour activists than Militant ever did. They then go down the road of claiming that anyone who ever held membership of Labour after the expulsion of militant is a right wing sell out devoid of principles. An immature, self serving and individualist view.

Thirdly the SP/CWI have trouble with giving credit where credit is due. everytime the Labour Party or Labour activists do hard work on a worthy cause, we get the usual crap trap of ''its not left wing enough''. When the SP do something which they deserve credit for , you dont see Labour activists trying to derail the thread into a rant on the pros and cons of the SP/CWI.

by Dbot Sun Nov 25, 2007 09:28

Chris you are entering fantasy land here. You can't seriously claim that labour activists are the standard bearers of "objective" accounts of history. For example what is your response to the argument that the Labour party are responsible for the jailing and torture of your very own Nicky Kelly when he was in the IRSP buddies.

At the rate your going you will end up with the Dermot Lacy view of left wing politics that you despise anything to the left of you. Calm down- i presume most people here and politics.ie are winding you up. Oh and stop posting when you're pissed.

by P Bowman Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:58

Again, I must say that I am really surprised with the behaviour of the SP/CWI posters. I had a different idea about SP members. After taking part in this exchange (I can’t really call it discussion), if these SP members are representative of the SP membership, I can conclude that the SP has become a sectarian organisation.

It is reflected in three points:

1.The attitude to the Labour Movement and the Labour Party
2. The attitude to the Republican Movement.
3. The manners and method of the SP members, who don’t engage in debates about ideas but in personal attacks.

The crude comments are there to be seen; I don’t need to reproduce them. With that attitude, SP members are putting off honest workers and the youth. The worst thing, however, is not that they are discrediting the SP but they very ideas of socialism that they claim to represent.

Honest workers and the youth are interested in debating about real problems affecting the working class nationally and internationally, and in finding real socialist alternatives. We have nothing to gain from engaging in sectarian nonsense. This has to be stopped.

P. Bowman
Labour Party member and Socialist.

by Dbot Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:15

Firstly saying that the SP is a sectarian is possibly a point of unity with many people, but your three points are strange

"1.The attitude to the Labour Movement and the Labour Party"
Is this surprising you did boot them out no? bitterness doesn't disappear that easily.
"2. The attitude to the Republican Movement."
Are you seriously going to criticise their attitude toward the republican movement. Many of the leadership of your party are ex DL/Workers party are well known for their abiding hatred of the Provisionals so pot kettle etc.
"3. The manners and method of the SP members, who don’t engage in debates about ideas but in personal attacks."
Can you really limit this to the SP?

You also say sectarianism has to stop etc - you are too right but I often wonder are you trying to bridge a chasm to wide this being between the revolutionary left and the labour for example can you work with anarchists and publicly say this in the run up to elections?

by SP member - Socialist Party Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:28

Chris in your contribution you talked of how the Labour Left stood up to the right wing in the LP more effectively. However it was the leaders of this section of the Labour Party such as Emmet Stagg and Michael D. Higgins who championed the idea of going into coalition with Fianna Fail at the special delegate conference in January 1993. They argued that coalition with FF would be different. As it turned out this was the government that disgracefully introduced a tax amnesty for the rich while PAYE workers were dragged in front of the courts for refusing to pay the double tax water charges.

One thing that strikes me about the recent Labour Party conference was that it seemed to represent the victory of form over content. Predictably organisations such as Socialist Appeal have made much fuss over the decision to adopt the red flag as its anthem and the decision to keep the words "democratic socialist" in its constitution. Yet this was the same conference that refused to support the Shell to Sea campaign. Liz McManus said that she had a problem with the motion because it "would leave the State open to the risk of paying enormous compensation to a private oil company". Did it not occur to her that the gas reserves of the Corrib gas field should be brought into democratic public ownership with no compensation being given to this ruthless multinational? The reality is that while the Labour Party may maintain certain props such as "the red flag" and may use the "s" word from time to time; such socialist policies are unconceivable for the modern day Labour Party to adopt.

On the issue of the motion that was past on the bus workers dispute again the conference only supported the grievances of the workers but stopped short of supporting the industrial action that they took. Again this is not an accident. They have completely abandoned the idea of workers relying on their own strength and embraced the idea of so-called "partnership" with the bosses. Interestingly not one LP public representative came out and supported the grievances or actions of the Dublin Bus workers. Joan Burton’s comment on the dispute speak for itself.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:29

Comrade Bowman - I notice in your signature you didn't include your affiliation to the IMT. Is this because you would be booted out of the LP if you had?

Comrade Bond - The motion didn't include support for the strike action being undertaken by the workers in Dublin Bus. All the platitudes in the world are useless without active support for workers in struggle.

Labour Left being non-factional - I suppose their support for the expulsion of members of the Militant Tendency is an example of their non-factional activity. As regards uniting more Labour activists than Militant - I suppose you could claim that given that they united with the right-wing in order to get the mercs and perks in 1992. The leading figures in Labour Left, Stagg, Taylor, Burton and Michael D. ended up as ministers of one sort or another in the FF/LP government.

The SP will always give credit where credit is due. The SP gives credit the the workers in Dublin Bus for standing up to the attempts by the management of the company who are intent on driving down their wages and working conditions. A strategy that would be supported by the LP if the LP had succeeded in getting into government this time around, just as they did on numerous occasions in the past. The motion was wishy-washy and weak. It demonstrated the poltical character of the LP in that it couldn't bring itself to support the strike action of the workers. It was written so as not offend/cause problems for anyone, particularly the leadership of the LP and ICTU and not cause any embarrassment at the 'Social Partnership' get-togethers with Bertie. Since its inception the LP has past motions at conferences that the leadership have gone away and ignored, with the so-called left turning a blind eye and eventually hopping into bed with them and doing exactly the same. Absolutely no credit due there.

by Chris Bond Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:33

Maybe you should email Nicky Kelly himself and ask him his opinion, he is a principled and hardworking councillor. if he holds membership of the party these days, then you're allegations cannot be the most accurate. Also talking of objective accounts of history, the accounts i recieve are from left wing activists involved in the Labour Party during the 1980s. The interpretation of history is inherently political. i wasnt intoxicated while i made my last post, allegations like that show lack of maturity on your behalf and an inability to transcend the personal.

Ive been to Socialist Party public fora in the past, it was comparable to being in Church, not to mention the fact that the chair was openly hostile towards non SP members when they tried to make constructive contributions to the discussion.

by Chris Bond Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:54

More distorted accounts of History, Labour Left argued for Militant to be allowed to stay in the Labour Party, the two once formed their own block on the adminstrative council. Regarding Tax Amnestys, members of my family, the Current Party Leader, our MEP, 3 other deputies and many current Labour representatives were in an organisation which campaigned strenuously against the Tax Amnesty, as a matter of fact they did a lot more on the issue than members of SP/Militant Labour.

Labour did not vote against the Shell to sea motion (which i wrote), the decision on it has been deferred.

Again on the Bus motion (again written by me) was influenced by my father who is affected by the strike, could it be that the South Dublin SP types know whats good for the workers better than they do themselves. In way does this motion mention Social Partnership. those who know me would know that i am opposed to Social Partnership, i even campaigned against the ratification of 2016. Trade Union members have voted for Social Partnership deals and there's no excuse we can make for that. to suggest that its the union beaurocracy who are forcing them to vote yes, is to have contempt for the intelligence of ordinary working people. Unions have a huge voting block at Labour Party conference, so to change the stance on partnership would be next to impossible, unless unions themselves changed their position.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Sun Nov 25, 2007 21:56

Now you are making me laugh

you said
'Labour Left argued for Militant to be allowed to stay in the Labour Party.'

Labour Left voted in favour of shutting down the three LP branches in Dublin West whose votes ensured that Joe Higgins was selected as LP candidate for Dublin West for the 1987 general election, at the LP conference. In fact by doing so Labour Left ensured that Stagg would not win the vice-chairperson's position in the LP because he lost the 30 delegate votes that the three branches had at the conference.

A handful of Labour Left people spoke (half-heartedly) against the expulsion motion of the Militant at the LP conference but the vast majority of Labour Left delegates voted in favour. Only about 30 or 40 delegates along with the 100 or so Militants voted against the expulsion. Labour Left had several hundred delegates at the conference.

I was there sunshine - and this is how it went down.

you said
'Regarding Tax Amnestys, members of my family, the Current Party Leader, our MEP, 3 other deputies and many current Labour representatives were in an organisation which campaigned strenuously against the Tax Amnesty,'

So your families political tradition is in the stickies. Explains a lot. All the guff about being different. The LP whole-heartedly supported the tax amnesty and the vast bulk of those who supported it are still sitting there alongside the 'Current Party Leader, our MEP, 3 other deputies and many current Labour representatives' . Doesn't look like the stickies had any problem hopping into bed with these people whan they lost their own political way after 1989.

So you were the person who decided that you couldn't include a section calling on the LP to support the strike action by Dublin Bus workers. Why? were you afraid it wouldn't get passed if you did? Were you on the picket line at any stage during the strike? The SP had representatives on the strike committee - actively participated in supporting the bus workers on the picket lines and there wasn't a LP member to be seen - anywhere

you said-
'Trade Union members have voted for Social Partnership deals and there's no excuse we can make for that. to suggest that its the union beaurocracy who are forcing them to vote yes, is to have contempt for the intelligence of ordinary working people. '

On more than one occasion the membership have voted AGAINST the partnership deals but because of how the vote is counted the bureacurats could vote it through at ICTU conference. And yes the union bureaucracy force people to vote yes - because workers know that if they strike for higher pay or better conditions they will be left high and dry by their so called representatives (who they can't boot out of the job). Workers aren't stupid (but not for the reason you suggest) and figure a couple of feathers is better than two birds in a bush. Furthermore the only contempt that is being displayed is to suggest that workers should support the LP when all they want is to hop into bed with whichever right-wing party will have them and then proceed to do exactly the same as they have done every other time they have been in coalition - protect the interests of the rich and screw the poor (by the way Democratic Left did the same during the rainbow coalition - so it really doesn't make any difference which political wing of the LP you come from at the end of the day).